PC's are fine, dude. PCs have a reputation as being terrible, but like a car, they just require some basic, minor maintenance and service to keep running smoothly. They're REALLY not that bad. Macs are good, too, but even they have their limitations (Time Capsule wouldn't exist without a reason).

You can build a fantastic PC for under $500 that will eat Photoshop up, then you can buy whatever monitor you want. 22 to 24" monitors are $200 to $300. It's possible to build a good, strong PC for that under $100. Under $800, even. Trust me. I build computers for people all the time. :)

For a PC, you want to look for 4GB of RAM and at least a Core2Duo E8200 and above. For Core2Quads, you want to pick a Q9450 or higher. They're slightly more expensive, but will age nicely as they go. Go with an ATI Radeon HD 4770 ($100) for your core graphics card for basic Photoshop/movie usage. If you're doing gaming, Radeon HD 4870 1GB ($175) or an Nvidia GTX 260 ($175) or higher.

I work on computers and macs all the time. If you need to tap knowledge... I'm your dude.

www.pcmag.com also helps too =3

Since you offered nicely, then I will ask some questions to ease my mind ;)

If I install a bunch of games and programs on to the machine and fill the hard drive with files, would I loose significant processing speed? Is there a suggestion for a type of hard drive?

Would there be any reason to go with a quad processor that you suggested, instead of a duo? Would a heavy gamer benefit more from a quad?

Having said that, I was suggested AMD processors. Such as the Phenom II X3 or X4. From what I understand Intel seems to be the "quality" option, while AMD is a "cost saving" option. What's your take on the two? Is it a quality over cost decision?

As for the graphics/video: I'm wanting to have dual monitors. A friend suggested the investment in two Radeons would be good for that. He suggested a 48xx card, which I understand is more powerful for rendering games.

Also, since I'm such a novice, what ARE the issues with having various components manufactured by different companies? Are there severe compatibility issues?

Lastly, do you have an opinion of BootCamp or Parallels Desktop? Let's say I get a Mac and wanted to run Dawn of War 2 on the Windows side. Would that be possible given the specs of a 2.9ghz 1TB iMac?

---

It seems that if I were to get a computer solely based on the goal of running Photoshop smoothly, then it wouldn't matter what I get. Either computer would get me the quality performance i seek.

Here is a list of what else I would probably use my computer for:

1) I'm doing the huge family project of converting home movies to DVD. It's worked well so far on my mom's iMac, and I'm familiar with the iMovie program.

2) Running some games. Games I remember loving in college on my room mate's PC: Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights, Dawn of War, Warcraft 3, and Dungeons and Dragons Online. I am also a fan of anything Sim. Of last note: I really enjoyed the Level Creation program in Neverwinter Nights. I'd probably monkey with that.

3) I've wanted to create Escape Room games in Adobe Flash.

4) I have a large collection of images *cough cough*. I love iPhoto for helping me organize it all, but I HATE how it lags and sometimes crashes. I would love a computer or program that works for organizing mass photo collections.

5) View FurAffinity all day long! I'm sure that would require some special graphics card, right?

Installing a lot of programs doesn't affect it as much as you'd think, especially not in Vista. XP can get a slightly bloated after a few years of things, but its' really minute. All depends on what you have installed (e.g. a lot of active applications -vs- passive).

Processors: On a desktop Intel is king for performance. AMD offers good performance -vs- cost, but I don't feel they're worth it dollar for dollar. I have an Intel Q9550 and Phenom X4 9950, and the intel chip massively outperforms the AMD in most tests. And it wasn't that much more expensive, either. AMD isn't bad though, so it's more of a personal preference. I wouldn't suggest anything less than a higher end current gen Phenom X4 920 or 940, otherwise you're wasting money.

AMD on a laptop is a joke at best at the moment, so avoid them.

Graphics: Getting two Radeons is a waste of money for the most part. A cheap $20 card can run two monitors (doesn't make it GOOD, but it can run them). Invest in a single GOOD card. If you game, go with an Nvidia GTX 260 or higher or 4870 1GB or higher. Don't invest in a 512MB 4870, not worth it long term. There's zero reason to get two graphics card (and I say this as a person WITH two).

Compatibility generally isn't much of a worry, honestly. I've not had much issues in random years. Just stick to the major brands and you're fine. The only time compatibility becomes a real issue is when you try to save money by going lower end. Stick mid to high end, you'll be fine. And high end DOESN'T have to be much more expensive for that matter.

Uhm, Dawn of War 2 on a Mac will be a bad experience. It will. Even running Bootcamp or Parallels, it's NOT going to be a good experience. Even the best mac has a low end graphics cards. They're good for OSX, but not for gaming. Even the highest end iMac *only* has a NVIDIA GeForce GT 130, which is a low end gaming graphics card. It won't offer a good gaming experience at all.

You can build a gaming PC for $500 that can run Crysis. Even the $2,200 iMac can't run Crysis.

1) You can get a lot lot of video editing apps on a PC, and they're not all expensive. Apple has a nice suite, I'll give them that.
2) Gaming is for PCs. Gaming on a Mac is sort of non-existent, and even then, it doesn't do them well. So for gaming, PCs are king.
3) Adobe works perfectly well on either Mac or PC.
4) ACDsee for the PC is the single best image application ever. EVER. *EVER*
5) Fur Affinity is best viewed wearing protective goggles to protect you from fluid disbursement.

I personally swear by Irfanview when it comes to Windows and image viewing applications, but then, the last ACDSee I’ve spent enough time with was the 2.x and 3.x series so things might have changed since then :) Love Irfan’s batch operations a bunch.

For photos, I use digiKam, but that’s a linux and kde application so not really of much use yet as a suggestion (until KDE4/Windows becomes usable anyway). For RAW images, a software called RawTherapee seems very nice (a windows release exists — freeware/donationware).

Not much else I can add here :3

You are a lovely dragondigithing. Thank you

What do you do for protecting your computers from viruses and malware?

Me, I don't use any antivirus. I don't need it (but then again, I know what I'm doing). I recommend using AVG for an antivirus. It's good, subtle. XP is highly prone to viruses, Vista not so much (not to say there aren't viruses, but XP is far, far easier to infect).

Mac viruses are starting to get a lore more prevalent, too

Oh, and for the record? Vista = not all that bad. It's got a VERY bad reputation (ironically, muchly due to the Mac crowd), but it's not all that bad. With a few tweaks, you can boost performance greatly. Vista had a rough launch, but it improved greatly. Windows XP and OSX, both highly revered, even had very rocky launches, too.

Dude.. if money is not an issue just get a damn macbook pro and buy a secondary monitor and an external hard drive.

I've used PC my entire life up until last september when I picked up this macbook pro. I've come to find that the mac OS is just such a nicer experience. I really don't see myself getting another PC but only time will tell :P

Macs are PCs too, especially now in this intel-based world. I don’t really hold them anywhere higher than just another PC, except perhaps the new PowerMac. The rest? Average shit. The new unibody MB and MBP are nice, here’s for hoping they don’t die on the users, turn yellow, break hinges, etc. etc. etc. right after the one year warranty goes off.

Tell you what, I guess the OS is great especially if you’re used to it. With the right components, you can get a hackintoshable computer with less the price and the same quality anyway.

I never had issues with the PCs I built, and there have never been issues with the one I bought for my dad. Cheap, no-name boxes don’t mean they don’t have quality components inside.

I wouldn’t buy an ASUS motherboard, personally.

Macs are PCs, yep... just with lower end hardware. Which is sad, too.

*Mac Pro, my apologies. That thing. Took me a while to remember the name for some reason.

msg FD we built computers for a decent price which are top of the line. quad core 3 ghz amd with 8 gigs of gaming ram, 1 gig hd 4870 graphics card, 2 dvd drives, case, mobo, 2 1 TB hard drives, and Vista 64 and 22in monitors for like around a grand off new egg.

Are you seriously still debating this after all this time? It's not a life altering experience here sugar, it's a new computer. Get what you feel you would like best. if you're used to Mac and it does what you want, stick with it. if you want to try Windows, go for it. (Of note, you can install Windows on a new Mac if you want to play with it, but then aren't stuck with it if you want to continue using Mac OS).
Me personally, I've been using Linux for months now, with a small partition for Windows just so I can play a game or two that I like that don't work in Linux. This is also an option, you don't have to have just one OS on your machine.
It all comes down to your priorities. If you want mostly to game, go with Windows, If you use your computer mostly for creative / work use, Mac would probably be more your thing. And if you're more into it for dependability, you might give Linux a try.
But honestly, whatever you do, do it because you want to, not because someone else said it was cool. Only you know what you really want to do.

X